User:Moink/diffs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feel free to add anything to this page that may impact on whether the community should support my RfA, but please do not remove anything without my permission. moink 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Recent abuse of Wikipedia
Out of process deletions/blocks:
- [1] from 03:06, 17 March 2006 to 13:32, 17 March 2006
Removal of comments on talk pages by myself and others:
- A large number of pages were involved
- e.g. [2]
Misuse of Wikipedia
- See [3] which wasted the time of a number of users.
[edit] Recent (since I stopped using sysop tools) positive stuff
- Large expansion of Joukowsky transform [4]
- Lots of small edits. Wikification, etc.
[edit] Older negative stuff
Disagreements with other users:
These are the ones I can remember; perhaps there are more.
[edit] Older positive stuff
- I like how the Andrea Dworkin death situation turned out (Guardian article), and I'd like to take a small amount of the shared credit for how well the community dealt with it. See Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive1#Death_confirmation
- I wrote the original versions of {{test2}} [13], {{test3}} [14], and {{test4}} [15]. They have survived surprisingly little changed from my original versions, although I now use {{test2-n}} etc.
- I think I've done a good job on several articles, though many of them could use pictures. Examples of articles I've contributed to significantly include Cessna Citation X, Fluid dynamics, Lift (force), Multidisciplinary design optimization.
- In the past, before voluntarily suspending use of my admin privileges, I've done quite a bit of recent changes patrolling, new pages patrol, speedy deletion, and closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debates
[edit] Older mixed stuff
- I originally wrote the essay which became WP:POINT [16]. At the time I was annoyed with a bunch of users doing disruptive things that took me time to clean up. Now I have mixed feelings about it. While I still like it as an essay, I'm not sure it should be policy, as disrupting Wikipedia is already against policy, and an additional blunt instrument isn't really necessary.
